1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the selective claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is removed or added as stated in the evidence No. 17 through 19, which is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiffs' claims as evidence submitted additionally by this court, and the testimony of witness V of the court of first instance is rejected, and part of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the court of

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance that is dismissed or added is as follows: “Until June 30, 2015” part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 4, 3, 2015, referring to “Until June 30, 2016.”

The following shall be added to the 6th page of the first instance judgment.

The Plaintiff stated “only when 10% of the unit price is reduced from May 2, 2013 (Evidence No. 4) to the Defendant,” which read “I think that I would be sufficient if you have sufficient human resources, quantities, or any more, at that time.” This seems to be recognized that I accepted the unit price reduction made at around 2010 and continued to maintain the subcontracting relationship.

In addition, the above notice states that "I would like to lead D's self-scam learning that has led to the original marbling so far as it would be possible to reduce the unit price of about 5% if you want to reduce the unit price of about 5%," and considering the depression of the shipbuilding industry, the situation where I's continuous demand for reduction of unit price against the defendant, and the fact that the defendant takes into account even the waiver of the business, the plaintiff A would have presented the unit price reduction rate at the line that can be operated by the company in order to maintain the contract with the defendant.

[2] The subcontractor, including the Plaintiff A, and the Defendant drafted a written consent to the reduction of the unit price (Evidence 5) with the content that the Plaintiff will continue operations by reducing the unit price by 5% from the win-win level.